This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
7. Building Damage 7.1 Damage of Concrete Structures
S. Kono and H. Tanaka Many recently built multi-story reinforced concrete buildings collapsed in major cities like Ahmedabad and Gandhidham. Those buildings had ground floors left open for parking with few or no filler walls, which resulted in a top-heavy and soft ground-floor system. Since buildings with sound construction did not experience any major damage for the level of ground motion experienced, the damage is considered to be due to inherent weakness in the structural system, design, detailing, poor material quality and unsound construction practice. This section overviews damage of RC structures and considers the causes of that damage. (1) Introduction The most commonly observed damage to RC structures was in the form of cracking and falling of infill walls. The infill walls were very vulnerable and damage to these walls resulted in significant economic loss and human casualties. However, the most striking failures were the structural failures of modern multi-story buildings. Since buildings with sound construction should not have experienced any major damage for the level of ground motion experienced, the damage was due to inherent weakness in the structural system, design, detailing, poor material quality and unsound construction practice. The damage spread not only to cities close to the epicenter but also to major cities far from the epicenter. Some of those cities are Morbi (125 km from the epicenter), Rajkot (150 km), Ahmedabad (300 km). Among the multi-story buildings that collapsed, most had the ground story left 75
open for parking with few or no infill walls between the columns. This created a top-heavy structure with insufficient strength and stiffness in the open ground story. Most buildings with complete infill walls in the ground story withstood the earthquake without collapse. Typical structural systems and major reasons of damage of RC structures are explained in this section based on the field investigation. (2) RC structures in Ahmedabad In Ahmedabad 300 km away from the epicenter, sixty-nine reinforced concrete buildings of five stories (ground floor plus four stories) and eleven stories (ground floor plus ten stories), such as shown in Photo 7.1 and Photo 7. 2, collapsed resulting in 746 causalities (Dept. of Earthquake Engineering, University of Rookie, 2001). About 80 percent of these buildings were built after the introduction of earthquake design codes. Although local geotechnical conditions and site amplification seemed to have influenced the damage patterns in Ahmedabad which is located on thick alluvial deposits along the Sabarmati River, the maximum recorded peak ground acceleration was as less as 0.11g at the basement of passport building as shown in Figure 7.1. Most of the properly designed buildings survived with minor damage but many five- and eleven-story buildings having "soft story" at the ground floor sustained heavy damage. These buildings were not designed for lateral loads as required by Indian Standard 1893 and no concept of ductile detailing recommended in Indian Standard 13920 was seen. The typical construction in Ahmedabad consists of reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame structures with
Photo 7. Geotechnical investigations are not carried out as a basic engineering requirement.3. Typical eleven-story RC building. no walls are provided and only columns are present as shown in the plan drawings in Figure 7. 2001). Foundation depths are usually 1. 2 and Figure 7.1.0 . 3. balconies at the higher floors can be surrounded by walls and it is not counted. Typical five-story RC building. which is highly vulnerable to earthquakes. and structural engineers are not even aware of the ductile detailing requirements of Indian Standard 13920. Building Damage un-reinforced brick or stone infill walls. 2. the shear reinforcing hoops are arranged as shown in Figure 7. Ground acceleration at the Ahmedabad Passport Building. common practice is to provide 6mm mild steel stirrups at a spacing of 200 mm in five-story buildings and in a 230 mm x 600 mm column. Therefore on the ground floor.5m for a five-story building and 2. rigid continuous beams and relatively less stiff columns created an undesirable strong-beam and weak-column system. Most of the buildings that collapsed or suffered structural damage rested on shallow footings. Additionally. 8mm steel stirrups for eleven story buildings at a spacing of 200 mm (Goyal et al.7. For a ground floor column of 230 mm x 450 mm. 76 . Tie beams are absent as the foundations were shallow. The provisions of Indian Standard 1893 to calculate equivalent lateral loads for seismic conditions are not considered. Buildings are designed only for gravity loads using 15MPa concrete for five-story buildings and 20MPa concrete for eleven story buildings (Goyal et al. For example. 2001). This makes a 'soft story' at the ground floor. If the area is not surrounded by walls at the ground floor. Figure 7. Photo 7. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has the floor surface index rule that limits the total covered area on a construction site. .1. Soil is alluvial and ponds have been filled to construct buildings at many places.7m for an eleven-story building as shown in Photo 7.2.4.
Line of symmetry Collapse Unit: mm Figure 7. Plan drawing of 11 story Mansi Complex. Elev.7. Building Damage 21270 1500 1730 3700 3100 1920 15 00 600 600×270 270 ×410 1000 270 ×500 400 ×270 1750 Unit:mm 480 1730 1730 1250 1010 2100 1020 1800 3820 260 ×410 205 ×400 3100 410 ×270 260×340 260 ×340 265 ×1035 1000 1750 410 ×5 0 BR 400 ×260 400 ×260 415 ×260 525×250 1685 1165 45 00 250 330 ×280 ×450 415 ×260 430 ×260 1975 875 24320 350 ×260 3100 1550 330 ×270 260 ×350 415 ×260 270 ×400 1230 330 ×270 3100 31 00 570 360 ×250 450 Well 470×260 475×260 480 ×260 2500 1700 320×260 Elevator 415 ×260 58 00 280 ×415 410 ×255 2035 875 330×250 1350 340 ×260 21 00 400 ×120 400 ×260 260 ×490 1500 402 ×260 1800 410 ×255 415 ×275 405 ×260 1900 525 ×260 1910 340×260 1650 260 ×415 (Unit:mm) 1800 275 ×420 265 ×400 1800 250 ×520 1500 3100 3700 1000 1430 Figure 7. 22600 2000 800 20 00 N 1720 1500 780 1950 1400 1150 32 00 780*250 250*800 250*780 250*780 1300 250*800 800*250 34 50 250*800 1950 250*500 22450 780*250 19 300 20 00 Elev. Plan drawing of Block C in Akshar Deep Flat show irregular column arrangement. 77 . 3. 2.
shallow foundations.7m story height. Photo 7. The half of the buildings split from the lift core and collapsed resulting in 46 casualties while the other half part in Photo 7.5. Poor design practice. At the ground floor. columns are not cast up to the bottom face of the beam and a gap of 200 – 250 mm is left.5.7. Mansi Complex collapsed because of the too much load from the pool at the top. This eleven-story building had a soft ground floor with strong beams and weak columns. and improper detailing caused the shear failure of columns at the ground floor. is still standing.4. Honeycomb concrete can be seen above the construction joint.4m for the column.4 m is cast with beams. Photo 7. Spliced shear reinforcing hoops. . Building Damage Photo 7. 3. a part of the column just below the beam has poor quality of concrete as shown in Photo 7.4.5. For example. further increased damage. For a 2. and the remaining 0. Additional loads of swimming pool and water tank without strengthening 78 .3 – 0.3. casting is done up to 2.4. This part of the concrete is very brittle as it is difficult to compact due to heavy reinforcement of cantilever beam. one of the most devastating failures of buildings was that of Mansi Complex constructed in 1994 in Photo 7. added at the top of the building without strengthening the columns. whose plan view is shown in Figure 7. Therefore plastic hinge zone below the beams is the most vulnerable part and top of the column was severely damaged by crushing and spalling of concrete. Figure 7. Foundation of collapsed five-story RC building. Because of heavy longitudinal reinforcement in the continuous beam. Extra floors and water tanks.
the floor plan and column arrangement is irregular and some beams are eccentrically connected to columns. The complete pancake failure was avoided since some infill walls sustained the vertical load. Akshar Deep Flat had three five-story RC buildings with penthouse on the top and parking on ground floor. Rajkot and the failure modes are quite similar to those observed in Ahmedabad. Anjar.8.7. Gandhidham. In this type of columns. The slab reinforcement was not properly anchored to the beams or walls of the core.6. The stiffness and strength in weak axis direction were not enough and the ground floor and the second floor swayed in the opposite direction. . Siddhi Apartment is a five-story RC frame with infill walls.7. In some of the buildings.7. The ground floor was open for parking. The half of the building did not collapse as the connecting beams and slabs failed due to improper embedment of reinforcement. the anchoring of the beam reinforcement cannot be secured in a short distance of the weak axis direction and consequently ends of some beams completely pulled out from beam-column joints. Four residents in each floor are symmetrically arranged and the floor plan and column locations are quite 79 Photo 7. Typical failures are briefly introduced below. damage to RC building structures can be also seen in major cities like Bhuj. regular. Building Damage the columns worsen the vulnerability. RC building in Bhachau collapsed in a side sway mechanism. Photo 7. shows a brand-new six-story . Photo 7. Columns are arranged in an irregular manner and the aspect ratio is large. shows a commercial two-story RC building in Bhachau. All columns have large aspect ratio so that the inside can be fully utilized as a commercial space.6. The penthouse was used as the part of the residence of fifth story. As seen from Figure 7. Two buildings collapsed in a pancake manner and the only one building withstood with heavy damage. Failure of columns at the ground floor resulted in pulling out of the improperly placed slab reinforcement. (3) Damage outside Ahmedabad Outside Ahmedabad. part of the building collapsed while stiff lift core block remained standing as there was no lateral load transfer mechanism to the core as shown in Photo 7. The ground floor columns under the east half part collapsed first and the upper part followed resulting in a pancake failure while the other half part and the lift core is still standing. The columns of the remaining part will be retrofitted by fiber reinforced plastic sheet and the structure will be reused. Photo 7. 2 and Photo 7. The floors of second and upper had 2 m cantilever floor hanging out from the outermost column resulting in a top-heavy structure.5.
Sayaji hotel in Gandhidham shown in Photos 7. The overload and the soft lower story lead to the failure. As shown in Photo 7. Columns with large aspect ratio failed at the ground floor at Sayaji Hotel in Gandhidham. The part of the structure beside the one in picture failed in a pancake manner and the other part behind lost the ground and second floors completely. Shear failure of columns in Pooja Flat Photo 7.9. 80 . Those thick walls were made of solid brick and created an overload condition.10.11 lost its ground floor.8. Sayaji Hotel in Gandhidham failed at the soft ground story. damage concentrated on the lower floors with shear failure at the most ground floor columns which had shear reinforcement of φ 8 at 200 mm pitch.9. The columns of the ground story had a section of large aspect ratio of 250x700 mm.7. Front & side view of Pooja Flat in Anjar Photo 7.10. Building Damage RC building named Pooja Flat in the city of Anjar. These collapsed parts detached from the part in the picture because beams and slabs were not properly anchored to the standing block. Photo 7. The ground and second floors were to be used for a commercial area and had large openings. 7. The upper floor had 600 mm thick wall for an architectural reason.11. Photo 7. .
The equation to predict the fundamental period (T=0. respectively. damage level based on EMS98 (European Seismological Commission.36 4 3 3 1 2 2 2 4 3 Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Morbi Bhuj Bhuj Bhuj Anjar Gandhidham Mansi B3 Complex B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 Hotel Mahesh Prince Hotel Limdiwaca Terrace NK Tower Pooja Flat Classic Complex (4) Detailed investigation of nine reinforced concrete buildings Nine RC buildings were investigated in detail in order to study causes of the damage and measure the fundamental period.38 0. Table 7.1 shows the number of stories. A solid circle ● and a square 田 show the fundamental periods in longitudinal and transverse directions. B1 B2 Building name Akshar Deep Flat Siddhi Flat Location No.7 12.56 0.2 15.48 seconds. Three spectra were averaged and fundamental period was read from the average spectra. the period of investigated structures was originally longer because the contribution of the non-structural components was very small.1.4 21. （Note：Section (4) was originally written in Japanese by Takumi Toshinawa. Fundamental period for each building was obtained from the micro-tremor measurement.59 0.44 0. Abe et al.17 0.6 18.53 0.0 15. Recorded acceleration history was Fourier-transformed and smoothened with Parzen window of 0.29 0. fundamental period in longitudinal and transverse directions.20 0. B1∼B3 are located in Ahmedabad 300km east of the epicenter and B4∼B9 are in cities closer to the epicenter.67 0.66 0.） 81 .02H. The procedure was carried out in both longitudinal and transverse directions independently. Hence. Figure 7.17 0. 1998).6 30.41 0.54 0. However. H is a building height in m) is also shown.98 0. These values are listed in Table 7. Measurement was carried out three times at the top of the buildings using an accelerogram for the period of 20. (1979) reported that the damage increases the fundamental period by 1.2 10.7 0.7.5Hz bandwidth.1 Investigated RC buildings No. The measured period is longer than the prediction partly because of the damage.22 0.5 times at most. where T is a fundamental period in second. of Stories 5 5 11 4 4 5 6 6 5 Height Fundamental Period (s) Damage (m) Level Longitudinal Transverse 14.5 shows the relation between the fundamental period and the building height.0 14.61 0. Building Damage Table 7.72 0. The fundamental period was obtained from the micro-tremor measurement and it is compared to a simple predictive equation. building height.
A.2 Period (sec) = 0. Poor detailing of structural joints 3. many reinforced concrete structures suffered minor to catastrophic damage. M. R.” Bureau of Indian Standards. and Jaiswal. Inadequate reinforcing steel tie spacing and 90 degree hook 82 References  Abe et al. “IS 13920:1993 Ductile detail of reinforced concrete structure subject to seismic forces.  Bureau of Indian Standards.  Goyal. 437-442. 1. K. Fundamental periods of structures.5.” Bureau of Indian Standards. detailing. Soft story effects 2. (1993).  Bureau of Indian Standards.02 x H (m) 0 0 10 20 30 Building height (m) 40 Figure 7. those damage was due to inherent weakness in the structural system. design. (1984). This explains the widespread structural damage to RC buildings in cities very far from the epicenter like Rajkot and Ahmedabad. Damage to RC buildings especially concentrated on the five-story or eleven-story buildings. which had soft ground floors used for parking. poor material quality and unsound construction practice. Inappropriate anchoring of beam and slab reinforcement 1 0. (1998). “IS 13935:1993 repair and seismic strengthening of buildings . Architecural Institute of Japan，pp.” Bureau of Indian Standards. Lateral force is not considered in design 7.8 Natural period (sec) 0.4 0. Honeycomb concrete at the top of ground floor columns 6. “European Macroseismic Scale 1998..  Bureau of Indian Standards.” Bureau of Indian Standards..guidelines. (1993). Chaudhari. Damage to RC building structures can be attributed to the combination of the following reasons. (1993). (5) Conclusions In this earthquake. “IS 1893:1984 Criteria for earthquake resistnace design of structures.. Sinha. Building Damage 4. Since buildings with sound construction should not have experienced any major damage for the level of ground motion experienced.  Bureau of Indian Standards.  Bureau of Indian Standards. (2001).6 0.7. “IS 4326:1993 Code of practice for earthquakes resistant design and construction of building. (1979) ． “Reduction of structural stiffness due to Miyagi Oki Earthquake using the micro tremor measurement， Summaries of Technical ” Papers of Annual Meeting.” European Center of Geodynamics and Seismology. (1993).  European Seismological Commission.. The most commonly observed damage to RC structures was in the form of cracking and falling of infill walls but the most striking failure was the structural failures of modern multi-story buildings. “Preliminary report on damage to r/c structures in urban . Insufficient reinforcing steel development length in columns with large aspect ratio 5.” Bureau of Indian Standards. “IS 13827:1993 Guidelines for improving earthquake resistance of buildings..
January 26.” 83 http://bunbun.rurkiu..htm  Toshinawa. Toyohashi University of Technoloty at the time of investigation. Hayashi (DPRI at Kyoto University) for supplying very useful information before and during our field trip. 2001. Y. Building Damage areas of Ahmedabad & Bhuj.  Kono. 74. New Delhi..taru.  Jain. Mumbai) for their support of our field investigation. (2001). TKM survey team consists of four field members (Leader: Prof. (2001). (2001). and Chaubey.kyoto-u. K.” Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting.. (2001). http://www. “The Republic Day Earthquake in the land of M. Taniguchi. of 26th http://www. “Report on structural damage of West India Earthquake of January 26..ac.” Department of Civil Engineering. Indian Institute of Technology. Kyoto University). Murty. Taniguchi.com.org/ quake/quake/population_affected/kuc hchh.in/depts/earthquake /bhuj/index. C. H. January 26. . Tanaka. Tanaka. 2001.K. February. Hitoshi Tanaka.archi.  Taru. and Prof. Fumio Watanabe. (2001). Indian Institute of Technology at Kanpur.  TKM West India Reconnaissance Team. Arai (EDM). ”Measured fundamental period of damaged reinforced concrete structures at the West India Earthquake. 2001.htm (In Japanese)  Dept. Note: This study is based on the reconnaissance survey by the TKM survey team. Sinha (Department of Civil Engineering. Kyoto University as of this writing) and three backup members (Leader: Prof.” Krishi Bhavan. 2001. Prof.N. “Earthquake of 26th January 2001 in Gujarat and many parts of India.” Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting. Prof..V. Architecural Institute of Japan.” A field report on structural and geotechnical damages sustained during the 26 January 2001 M7. “Brief summary of building damage in the West India Earthquake. Paul (Department of Earthquake Engineering. Bhuj Earthquake. March 20. The Father of the Nation. University of Rookie (2001).7. S. Weekly Situation Report No.L. Kono. Satish (Department of Civil Engineering. S.html (6) Acknowledgment We acknowledge Prof. Japan Society of Civil Engineering. J.com/  Ministry of Agriculture.  Mapofindia. of Earthquake Engineering. Indian Institute of Technology. Government of India. U. January 26. Dr. (2001). www.mapsofindia. “The Kachchh Earthquake January 2001”.9 Bhuj Earthquake in Western India. Bombay. Krishi Control Room. T.jp/rcin fo/india/index. Roorkee). Department of Civil Engineering. Dayal. Indian Institute of Technology. Roorkee University. and Watanabe. Gandhi. Madras).R. Kaminosono (BRI). Thanks are also extended to Mr.ernet. Arlekar.